United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) online

. (page 97 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 97 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


tionary) is not determined by who the aggressor was, or
whose land the "enemy" has occupied. It is determined
by the class which is waging the war, and the politics of
which the war is the continuation.

In the Soviet definition a war is a "just" war,
and an intervention or interference is proper and
legal, if it has as its purpose the imposition of
Communist domination, which they call "libera-
tion." They are "unjust" and "illegal" if they
are actions taken to resist subversion or invasion
by Communists. Thus in the Korean conflict the
Soviets argued that it was the United Nations
rather than the invading North Koreans and
Chinese "volunteers" who were the aggressors.

The basis for this definition is the Communist
assertion that Communist states are by their very
nature incapable of aggression or of intervention
since they represent dictatorship by the proletariat
and are "building" a classless international society
which they assert will bring permanent peace — a
Pax Muscovite.

We have quite a dilferent definition of aggres-
sion and intervention. It is based on established
principles of international law and morality. In
our definition the use of force and subversion by a
foreign power to overthrow a constitutional gov-
ernment, or the use of force by a foreign power to
install and maintain a dictatorship against the will



506



Department of State Bulletin



of the people, is the essence of intervention. This
is especially true where the objective of the foreign
power is not to help a people regain their right
to govern themselves but to impose hegemony of
the world Communist movement. For the free
•world this is not merely a juridical question ; it in-
volves their survival in freedom.



"Imperialism"

"Imperialism" is another word from the Marx-
ist-Leninist dictionary that is often applied to
free-world countries and to the United States in
particular.

In Webster's dictionary imperialism is defined
as:

The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking to extend
the control, dominion, or empire of a nation.

It may strike my fellow citizens as odd that a
nation which has subjugated hundreds of millions
of people and whose policies aim at world domina-
tion should describe as imperialist a nation whose
flag flies over no people against their will and
which has no desire to impose itself on others. We
must therefore look for a new and different defini-
tion — a Communist definition. Lenin gives us the
answer :

Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development
In which the domination of monopolies and finance capital
has established itself; In which the export of capital has
acquired pronounced importance ; in which the division
of the world among the international trusts has begun.

Let us look at some of the words in this defini-
tion and the ideas conjured up by them.

First, Lenin says we are imperialists because we
are capitalists. Capital is defined by Webster as :

A stock of accumulated wealth ; specifically : . . . (b)
An aggregation of (economic) goods used to promote the
production of other goods, instead of being valuable solely
for immediate enjoyment

Obviously every economy, including that of the
Soviet Union, has and uses capital. Otherwise it
would not be possible to build industry or agricul-
ture.

There is, however, a difference in who owns the
capital.

In the United States capital is owned by tens of
millions of people. Ownership is so widely
diffused that our system is often called a "people's
capitalism." In the Soviet Union capital is owned
by the state or, more precisely, by those who man-



age the state, the new Russian ruling class. Thus
Russia has a system of state capitalism; we have
a system of private ownership of capital.

And this brings us to some other words in
Lenin's definition. He says we are imperialists
because we have monopolies and trusts. This is
one of the great deceptions in the Communist
dialectic.

The Soviet system of international trade does
not consist of a number of monopolies; it consists
of a single monopoly, the Soviet trading organ-
ization. If a nation wants to trade with the Soviet
Union, there is only one organization to deal with.
This organization tixes artificially the prices of
Russian exports. In this way it also determines,
for all practical purposes, the value of the goods
Russia imports. This is the technique of barter.
But even allowing for the "padding" of the prices
of Russian exports, the prices which Russia pays
for its miports seldom exceed, and sometimes do
not equal, the prices fixed by competition in the
free markets of the world.

The best evidence of Soviet generosity in inter-
national trade is to be found in the comparative
rates of economic growth in recent decades as be-
tween the Soviet Union, on the one hand, and its
satellites on the other. East Germany, Rumania,
Bulgaria, Hungary, and other satellites have had
a painfully slow rate of economic growth while
that of Russia has been relatively high. But of
course the fact that the people in the poor satellite
countries work hard without progressing is not
Soviet economic "imperialism." It is "socialist
cooperation."

In contrast those who engage in international
trade with the free world may not only choose be-
tween countries which compete with each other in
price and quality ; they may choose their supplier
within a country and negotiate with him in the
certain knowledge that liis competitors within the
same country are anxious to bid. Since prices are
ruled largely by the cost of labor and materials in
a free competitive system, the successful exporter
is the one who by his own initiative has achieved
greater efficiency or who is willing to accept a
smaller margin of profit.

But here again the best evidence of who is the
real exploiter is to be found in the comparative
rates of economic growth as between the United
States and its trading partners. If we look at
Latin America the figures for the last decade show



March 26, 1962



507



that their economic growth rate lias been twice
as high as that of the United States and much
higher than those countries surrounding Russia
•which have been "liberated" by the Soviet Union.

The truth is tliere have been no "monopolies" or
"trusts" in the United States since the passage of
antitrust legislation by our Congress many years
ago. Our system is based on the principle that
producers must be competitive in order to survive.
All attempts to fix prices, to divide markets — all
practices limiting competition — are promptly
penalized by civil and even criminal actions in our
courts. But since the Communist dialectic was
cast by Marx in a 19th-century mold of dogma-
tism, Communists must continue to talk in terms
of practices which have long since disappeared in
the free world.

Monopolies and trusts do exist today in the
Soviet Union. It is the Soviets who fit squarely
into Lenin's definition of economic imperialism.

Finally, Lenin's definition says we are imperial-
ists because we export capital, because the export
of our capital has acquired "pronounced impor-
tance" and tends to "divide" the world between
foreign investors.

One of the ways in which the United States ex-
ports capital is by loans and grants from the
public sector of its economy. Yet Communist
governments, which profess to being disciples of
Marx and Lenin and wliich constantly talk about
"imperialism," are eager to obtain United States
Government aid and loans. They apparently do
not consider that United States economic aid of-
fends their sovereignty or subjects them to ex-
ploitation. How, then, can these same Communist
countries assert with a straight face that the export
of capital from the United States public sector
to countries which have not been "liberated" by
the Communists constitutes United States "im-
perialism"?

Our people have been willing to make unparal-
leled sacrifices to help free nations develop eco-
nomically and socially. I hope they will continue
to do so under such programs as the Alliance for
Progress prescribed in tlie Bogota ' and Punta del
Este^ agreements. These programs of aid are
nobly inspired in the best American traditions.
They are among our best contributions to world
peace and progress. But we do not force our



' For text, see Bulletin of Oct. 3, 1960, p. 537.
' For text, see ibid., Sept. 11, 1961, p. 463.



loans on those who believe our programs are "im-
perialistic." We need our capital for our own
development. We do not even quarrel with coun-
tries which prefer to generate their own develop-
ment capital through intensified efforts to mobilize
their own resources.

The same considerations apply to the export of
United States development capital through private
enterprise. We have been willing to permit in-
vestments of our capital in other countries to speed
up others' economic progress. I hope we will con-
tinue to be able to do this in spite of our balance-
of-payments and other problems. But here again
we need our private capital for our own develop-
ment. We have no wish to force it on others. We
will always concede others the right to choose a
slower rate of economic growth by discouraging
new United States private investments and by
purchasing existing United States private invest-
ments at their fair value. Unfortunately the prin-
cipal obstacle to a faster rate of purchase is the
reluctance of others to accept the smaller profits
and higher reinvestment ratios which are the proud
hallmark of the United States capitalist.

But perhaps the greatest error in the Marxian
dialectic of economic imperialism was Marx's mis-
calculations of the importance of foreign capital
in world economic development. We now know
from experience unavailable to Marx that ap-
proximately 90 percent of development capital is
of domestic origin. Only about 10 percent is for-
eign. Obviously then the rate of economic growth
is primarily determined by internal policies and
practices of the developing country, by the degree
of confidence on the part of domestic investors,
by national fiscal, monetary, and investment poli-
cies, by the selfless dedication of public servants
to economic and social progress and other do-
mestic factors. These are the decisive ingredients
of growth. United States public and private cap-
ital can supplement but it can never be a substitute
for domestic effort and domestic policies.

Finally it should be pointed out that United
States private foreign investments have never ac-
quired the "pronounced importance" predicted
by Marx. Our foreign investments are largest
in the highly industrialized countries of Western
Europe and Canada. In the developing countries,
our foreign investments constitute only a very
small fraction of our invested capital. It also
constitutes only a small part of the capital of other
countries. It is economic nonsense and the most



508



Deparlment of Sfafe Bulletin



blatant demagoguery to say that nonexistent
"trusts" are "dividinc;" the world between them.
Yet this is another Marxian myth which lives on,
like the tales of Alice in Wonderland^ by the sheer
force of repetition. But in any case the trend is
toward reducing still further the proportion of
United States investments. In the last few months
the rate of new United States private investments
in Latin America has declined by approximately
66 percent.

Comparison of Soviet and U.S. Economic Systems

There are various ways in which the compara-
tive merits of the United States and Soviet sys-
tems of ownership and control of capital can be
tested. But since the avowed purpose of com-
mimism is to help the common man, let us apply
this test : Which system has actually achieved the
highest standard of living for its people?

The answer is clear. Our free-enterprise indus-
try has concentrated principally on producing
consumer goods which directly and immediately
benefit the people. State capitalism in the Soviet
Union has been principally employed in the manu-
facture of capital goods, particularly armaments.

The result is apparent for all to see. Our farm-
ers, our factory workers, our miners, our profes-
sional workers, our artists — our masses of
people — enjoy an infinitely higher standard of
living than do the Soviet people. The proof is
that leaders of the Soviet Government, after 40
years in power, continue to speak about "reaching
and overtaking" us.

T\Tiether one talks in terms of gross national
product or in terms of per capita income or in
terms of volume of production for the consumer
the Soviet Union has a long way to go to catch up
with the United States. And with the emergence
of the European Common Market, which has more
people and more industrial capacity than the
Soviet Union, the latter has been relegated not to
second but to third place.

The essentially competitive character of our
economy is the best guarantee of constant improve-
ment in efficiency of our production. This has
and will continue to translate itself into higher
quality goods at a lower cost and in greater quan-
tity for the people. The living standards of any



people depend on the abundance, the quality, and
the cost of goods produced plus the purchasing
power of the people who need the goods.

Deception by Semantics

There are other words in the Marxist-Leninist
dictionary that could be discussed if time per-
mitted. They have, however, the same common
denominator: All definitions must be consistent
with and support the myth that the Soviet Union
is a "democracy" of a "classless society" which
holds "free elections" and is the leader among the
"peace-loving" world Communist movement.

I believe someone has already observed that the
international Communist conspiracy cannot bring
rationality and order to international life. It can
only make a virtue of chaos, delusion a habit, crisis
a necessity, deception a principle of conduct, and
paranoia a synonym for achievement.

The few who have taken the time to learn about
Communist doctrines are not fooled because they
understand that Marxist-Leninist definitions bear
little or no relation to our words as we understand
them. But many do not know the dialectic. And
they are deceived by Commiuiist appropriation of
the words they like best because they associate them
with all that is good and noble in the past.

Because of the success of the American Revolu-
tion and the wide acceptance of its principles we
are not as aware as we should be of the urgent
need to awake from our "sleep of the just." In
these critical times, when even the meanings of our
most cherished precepts are placed in doubt, all
who love freedom should make a personal effort
to combat this deception by semantics. The most
effective way to do this is by word and deed to
affirm and reaffirm the true meanings of those pre-
cepts to which throughout our history we have
pledged our honor, our fortune, and, many times,
our lives.

The Communists have been persistent and ex-
plicit about the meanings they attach to our pre-
cepts. We must be equally persistent and explicit
in making clear that the American people continue
to support those principles which have flourished
on our soil and which have ever been the hope of
mankind.



March 26, 1962



509



Secretary Greets Voice of America
on 20th Anniversary

Remarks hy Secretary Rush ^

Wlien the Continental Congress sent instruc-
tions some 185 years ago to Benjamin Franklin,
the father of our diplomacy, for his conduct at
the court of France, there were two which had
the flavor of modern times :

Tou are to lay before the court the deranged state of
our finances. . . . and show the necessity of placing them
on a more respectable footing. . . .

Tou are, by every means in your power, to promote a
perfect harmony, concord, and good understanding, not
only between the allied powers, but also between and
among their subjects, that the connexion so favourably
begun may be perpetuated.

Franklin was assiduous in telling America's
story to what we would now call opinion molders,
as well as officials, and made good use of an un-
steady flow of newspapers, gazettes, and pamphlets
for that purpose.

Information has been an ancient arm of di-
plomacy, growing with the means available and
with the increasing role of ordinary citizens in
the course of public afi'airs.

Diplomacy today has many dimensions — eco-
nomic and technical assistance, military aid, and
information and cultural activities among them.
Today we proudly mark the 20th anniversary of
the Voice of America, one of the oldest of the
modem American ventures in international in-
formation.

I say "modern" because periodically through
our history we have sought to explain ourselves
to the people of the world as well as to their
leaders. Our first efforts, in fact, date back to
the very beginnings of this nation, when our Dec-
laration of Independence noted the American de-
sire for a "decent respect to the opinions of man-
kind."

Although we made a small effort during the
First World War, it was not until World War II
that we Americans fully realized how much our
country's security and stature depended on what
ordinary people everywhere thought of us, our
institutions and our intentions. In 1942. at the



'Made at Washington, D.C., on Feb. 26 (press release
124) at ceremonies marking the anniversary.



high-water mark of enemy advance, President
Roosevelt launched the Voice of America and
shortly thereafter asked the celebrated radio news
analyst Elmer Davis to head an Office of War In-
formation and tell America's story to the world.

After the war the United States for the first
time made information activities a permanent part
of our work abroad. Today we in the State De-
partment consider the information program an
indispensable dimension of American diplomacy.
The Voice of America and our other information
activities demonstrate our respect for the opinions
of people as well as their governments.

We in this country define responsible govern-
ment as that which is responsible to, and periodi-
cally accountable to, the people in whose name it
acts. However, not every government accepts this
definition. And yet even in these countries public
opinion is not a negligible factor in the considera-
tions of their rulers. It is precisely in those coun-
tries in which public participation is the smallest
where the greatest precautions are taken to control
the information reaching the public.

If, then, the public in coimtries controlled by
dictatorships can exercise a moderating influence
on their government officials, we must see to it
that the public knows the facts. It must have
more information than its own governments are
willing to make available. This is an important
part of the job of the U.S. Information Agency
and its Voice of America.

Thus the first responsibility of the Voice of
America is to broadcast the news, fully and fairly.
This the Voice is doing, and it should not be
otherwise. In its commentaries the Voice of
America should explain clearly the policies and
views of the United States Govermnent. This the
Voice is doing, and it should not be otherwise.

These days VOA commentaries deal with the
most important subjects of current affairs: the
Berlin crisis, and our determination that this city
shall remain free and accessible; disarmament,
and our determination to reach agreement on an
effective program of general and complete dis-
armament; the United Nations, and our determi-
nation that this peacekeeping body shall be
strengthened, not weakened; man's desire to
choose liis own future, and our determination that
freedom of choice shall be cherished and extended ;
and tlio efforts of newly developing nations to



510



Department of Slate Bulletin



niotlernize their economies and societies, and our
determination to lielp them.

Now 20 years old, the international information
program is a full-fledged partner in the conduct
of American foreign affairs. I welcome and ap-
preciate this opportunity to participate in these
ceremonies marking the 20th birthday of the Voice
of America. My colleagues in the State Depart-
ment at home and abroad join me in wishing this
voice of freedom many happy returns of the day.

With confidence in the future of our country
and free men everywhere, I am certain there will
be many more such happy anniversaries.



Regional Operations Conference
Meets at Baguio

The Department of State announced on March
8 (press release 150) that it would hold a Far
East Regional Operations Conference at Baguio,
Philippines, March 12-14. United States ambas-
sadors and other top U.S. officials from 17 Far
Eastern posts were expected to attend.

The 3-day conference was chaired by Chester
Bowles, the President's Special Representative
and Adviser on African, Asian, and Latin Ameri-
can Affairs. It followed a 2-day Far East chiefs-
of-mission meeting, also at Baguio, on March 10
and 11, under the chairmanship of W. Averell
Harriman, Assistant Secretary of State for Far
Eastern Affairs.

The Regional Operations Conference is similar
to those held last year in Nigeria, India, Cyprus,
Peru, and Costa Rica for senior U.S. representa-
tives in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and
Latin America. A major purpose of the confer-
ence is to strengthen and coordinate U.S. opera-
tions in the Far East by emphasizing the role of
the ambassador as coordinator of all U.S. Govern-
ment activities in the country of assignment. This
concept was the subject of a Presidential letter to
all ambassadors last May.'

Accompanying the ambassadors to the con-
ference were the chiefs of the U.S. Information
Service, the administrators of U.S. foreign aid,
and the heads of the U.S. Military Assistance
Groups.



TREATY INFORMATION



Current Actions



MULTILATERAL



Migration

Coustitution of the Intergovernmental Committee for
European Migration. Adopted at Venice October 19,
1953. Entered Into force November 30, 1954. TIAS
3197.

Acceptances deposited: Bolivia, December 1, 1960; Ecua-
dor, November 12, 1959 ; Panama, November 13, 1958 ;
United Kingdom, May 11, 1961.
Notifications of withdrawal: Federation of Rhodesia
and Nyasaland, March 22, 1960, effective December 31,
1960; Sweden, June 21, 1961, effective December 31,
1961.

Narcotic Drugs

Protocol for limiting and regulating the cultivation of
the poppy plant, the production of, international and
wholesale trade in, and use of opium. Done at New
Yorl< June 23, 1953.'

Notification received that it considers itself bound:
Cameroon, January 15, 1902.

Telecommunications

International telecommunication convention with six
annexes. Done at Geneva December 21, 1959. Entered
into force January 1, 1961 ; for the United States
October 23, 1961. TIAS 4892.

Ratification deposited: Australia (including the Terri-
tories of Papua, Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Is-
lands, Christmas Island, and the Trust Territories of
New Guinea and Nauru), February 1, 1962.'
Radio regulations, with appendixes, annexed to the inter-
national telecommunication convention, 1959 (TIAS
4892). Done at Geneva December 21, 1959. Entered
into force May 1, 1961 ; for the United States October 23,

1961. TIAS 4893.

Notification of approval: Australia (including the Ter-
ritories of Papua, Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) I.s-
lands, Christmas Island, and the Trust Territories of
New Guinea and Nauru), February 1, 1962.

Trade and Commerce

Agreements relating to the multilateral General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and Trade, signed during the 1960-61
tariff conference at Geneva :

Interim agreements, with schedules. Signed March 5-7,

1962, with the following countries : Denmark, Finland,
Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal,
Sweden (subject to ratification by Sweden), and Swit-
zerland, March 5, 1962; Austria (subject to ratification
by Austria) and Japan (subject to approval), March 6,
1962 ; Canada, European Economic Community, and
United Kingdom, March 7, 1962. The concessions set
forth in the schedule of a party take effect (or will be
applied), except as otherwise provided in the schedule,
.30 days after the date on which that party has notified



' For text, see Bth-letin of Dec. 11, 1961, p. 993.
March 26, 7962



■ Not in force.

" With reservations contained in final protocol.



511



the other party of its intention to put such concessions
into effect (or has given notification of application to
the other party), except that the concessions set forth



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 97 of 101)